Zero

Did anyone else have a broken Big Daddy? Do they telephone you after they've sent the box or is it just sent and when you get it you get it.... edit: The second portion of my question means after you've filled out the online form.

I doubt In the beginning though Also Considering the tricks he was playing could have done it himself and blamed it on He never would have had to come clean. Yeah but there is the whole But did you know it was

Except he is like 49..

I doubt In the beginning though Also

Just for clarification

Some oddities regarding Ebert's comment though is that he doesn't talk about the great painters or sculptors , but he does mention the dramatists (etc.). And then he says "That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience". So does he mean art in his personal opinion? Or art in some kind of narrative sense? That the narration part of games are akin to craftsmanship. But that the visual part can achieve the same level as "art" found in museums. Which leaves him either with contradictory statements ( that it lacks the ability to move beyond craftsmanship but he accepts it can aspire to artistic importance visually), or he is referring to his personal definition in which he leaves out Piccasso, DeKooning, Monet, Michelangelo, etc. edit: I realize the conversation has veered in another direction, but I'm curious about this none-the-less.

I haven't played through the evil way, do you have to get cursed at by the big T. if you do evil? Edit: I can't bring myself to kill little girls, even indirectly, in a video game. I'm too much of a wimp to find out for myself or replace wimp with hyper-sensitive , depending on your macho meature and if you even measure it.

Qui-Gon seems like the best people have gotten so far. He is an all around good guy and isn't suffering apparently from a batch of crotch-rot. And he's tall....girls seem to dig that..unless their very very *tiny*... so you short guys get loving too...

Its alot easier if you collect either way. 160- per little girl if you harvest 80 adam- if you spare them. (I think its either 3 in a row or 4 in a row) but you get a gift of 200 gift from T. later on. Doesn't even it out exactly.... but doing the right thing isn't as much as a screw-over as you may expect from a morally ambiguous game.

If you put on the physical plasmid that allows you to put out an electric discharge(I forget the name) after being hit, it helps alot. You get time to heal yourself and they are stunned momentarily.

Like I said he seems like a nice guy and his apology was sincere as far as I could tell (if you read that apology of the Lionhead forums). But if you followed that game for 3 years (I did) ; and all you got were these little glimpses.. and closer to release he says is going to be the greatest RPG ever. The devs really just gave you concept art and all these hints and than you got previews based on verbatim.. Its easy to understand why people were pissed... I was pissed.. But reading the apology did make the anger go away.. A image of perfection in one persons mind may not translate to the masses. I kinda feel for the guy, he said if Fable 2 isn't groundbreaking that he should reconsider his job. He seems very invested.. and you can see it in his eyes.. Or else he is just good at selling himself (I don't think thats the case, but you could probably argue it, as you can about anything).

Indeed, and a large portion of his argument seems based on the idea that the other mediums have some great works thus they are capable of being art. Yet if movies theoretically were all a bunch of Michael Bay films or literature a bunch of trashy romance novels; and they didn't have any of those great names/titles to fall back on , would they be considered art? That is would they be considered mediums for art by most people concerned with the term or would they just be another medium capable of some things but not others (as Ebert as labeled gaming). Like others have said how much has Ebert actually played games? He is after all close to his 70s, I don't think many from that generation are that into gaming. On my own biased opinion, I would agree there hasn't been any "great" artistic games for me as an individual, but I've seen enough of the medium to know it is capable of.

At least I didn't get the kid variation....

I too enjoyed Fable for what it was. Apparently Molyneux seriously overhyped Fable and those who were following it

Having played through it, I kinda agree with you now. Though pretentious seems like too strong of a word. I'm partly replying to bump this thread, because I wasn't sure if you had more to say on the subject and couldn't double post(if thats the case with this forum or not).

The twist caught me off guard... and it was a nice little critique of the FPS genre -in regards of how we are constantly in motion . And it was definitely needed considering how cliche the game seemed up to that point- with Ryan being the main evil and Apollo's family being killed (I'm curious who/what exactly was in that bathysphere). I'm not sure if you did this or not, but after you leave the Little Sister Hideout; after replacing the wheel to open the door. I accidently replayed the tape by Suchong on mind control (because you had to hold down A to turn the wheel); it was amazing moment climbing the ramp while hearing the little boy not want to kill the puppy. And I already heard what Tennebaum(sp?) and Fontaine had to say, so that recording went un-interrupted. The Boss fight was pretty easy. And the ending I saw was ok , not great... I saved all the Little Sisters so it was the "good" ending- not sure if there is a bad one. But I really wasn't expecting much from it, since I didn't think the story was all that great... the atmosphere and settings were.. but I didn't find the story particularly strong. That said it basically boils down to Suchong= Sicko Psychopath Ryan= Immoral Idealist and a Psychopath Fontaine= Manipulative Sociopath correct? or no? Also I really wish there were more chances to talk to the people of rapture and that the bosses weren't just mainly amped splicers. I believe the Ryan scene would have been a tad more effective if they had made him look more realistic... but I agree for the most part his death is a great sequence. To be honest I'm kinda sad we didn't also get to see more of the people we heard the tape recordings of. Especially the Australian fellow; even though we know exactly where he ended up(not just a basic idea like Diane McClintok,etc.); I was hoping for something a bit more since he seemed like the most moral of the bunch.

It does a little bit, but I'm still very addicted to the game and near the end. The combat is still fun, but I think its an immersion issue... same with the enemies you face later on. They basically just recycle the models and voices of the enemies, so when you first encounter them its creepy and disturbing but when you see the same guy/gal walking around voicing the same line you heard 10 minutes ago ti really takes away from the experience imo. Don't get me wrong its still a great game, but I do think the overall quality of the game suffers from this and all the little sisters looking identitical. Because when you first encounter them its such a memorable experience, but you become detached from your enemies when you see they are all virtually clones. edit: Than again, this might just be a problem with this current (tech) gen. Considering all FPSs basically have repeated use of enemy models, its just that its not as noticable due to the fact that they are either masked (Combine in HL2) or aliens (Gears of War, Resistance).

It makes sense later in the game. Probably shouldn't say more than that. In the pre-rendered introduction, although he has similar clothing and uses plasmids in a way that we don't see normal splicers ,in game, do- he does end up with a drill through his stomach. Opening up the possibility he is just a splicer.. Alternatively they just comissioned/made the scene before they had a final look for the protagonist. And the drill through the stomach can be resolved due to the fact that death is basically a non-issue in the game.

Reviews aren't that great: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/...tactics#critics When I first heard of it; I got the feeling they were trying to find a way to milk more money out of the D&D license and just ignored its progress completely.

I think its quite good , but I'm not loving it as much as I expected too. Still firmly addicted and will probably replay many times, but the amazing intro sequences I suspect raised my expectations a bit too high. I'm starting to find the fights a little repetitive but maybe after I unlock some more plasmids or get more creative it will get better. I have to say the game reminds me a lot of Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (albeit with a much better setting).

Very very cool intro.. I'm kinda bummed that all the little girls and some of the slicers (but they aren't as noticable) look the same. But still amazing looking game, traveling down to Rapture is a great experience. And I like those Pip-Boyish graphics; they are done by the same artist who worked on Fallout, right? (sorry if this was already asked, didn't read the thread because I didn't want to be spoiled) edit: Though I was already kinda expecting them to mostly all look the same from the previews, so I shouldn't be so nit-picky.

Are you talking about that person reflected in the glass? Or someone else? I may need to re-watch that ending...

Ophelia was supposed to be an AI, like Daedalus. Daedalus is from the first game, I take it? So Ophelia wasn't codename for that space-station where all those creepy red goggled eye guys were monitoring everyone ? I guess I should play the first game. That one ending was the only one where I thought Ion Storm might have been giving a mystery to be solved in the third game- had they not closed their doors.

Ok well that clears things up a bit. If games progress to the point of Virtual Reality; than it could transcend any current medium. The designers would have authoritorial control over how the game reacts to each individual; and if the AI is smart enough it will tailor itself to the player. Scary and exciting. As for games as we currently know them. We might get some games that fit Ebert's definition; the main reason being that games are more and more mainstream. The more mainstream something is the more people get interested; develop careers. We will get more specialists in the gaming field- those who grew up with games and have their own idea on how to exploit the medium. I was surprised when I saw LittleBigPlanet ; it was one of the few games that I saw that actually excited me in quite a while. But it doesn't fit Eberts doctrine of art. It might fit mine. Not inherently. Problem I see are mainly in that designers often use it as the primary mode of play, and we don't feel the full force of the deaths we have inflicted. Whereas the supposedly great novels and movies; we either get a sense from the protagonist of how it has changed him or we see how the death has changed the world. A lot of movies are bad... by my standards a least. Some entertaining, very very few leave an impression on me. You've seen avant garde stuff, so I'm guessing you've seen everything. But what climaxes have both gratuitous violence and sex at the same? OldBoy is the closest I can think of and maybe.... Strange Days.